Writers' Community!
Home News Business Science & Technology Life
Front Page Page Two Columnists Submit an Article FAQs Contact Author Login
Article Submission
We Need YOUR Articles!
We'll Promote Them for FREE!

Author Login

New Authors
Register Here


Now Serving 5,555 Authors
48,437 Quality Articles
& 2,612 Current Users Online!
Featured Authors
Robert Melaccio, Sr. (6,499)
Richard Nicastro (2,545)
Dianne Lehmann (3,112)
Mike Fak (6,887)
David Pekrul (710)
Terry Mitchell (2,785)
Sara O'Rourke (401)
Joel Hendon (4,850)
Susan Thom (9,014)
Laura Trahan (32,713)
Abigail Richards (6,393)
Peggy Butler (3,553)
Avis Ward (13,445)
Tex Norman (4,329)

View All Featured Authors
Most Recent
GPS Navigation and Sat Nav - A buying guide

Automobile Essentials: Your Must Haves No Matter What Kind of Driving You Will Do

Important things to keep in Mind When Taking a Road Trip

VIN Number Decoding for Classic Cars

Classic Cars for Sale Search Tips

Classic Cars for Sale: Scam Proof Techniques

Todays Classic Car Values

The Must-Haves Item When Driving

How to Clean White Wall Tires

How to Polish Chrome Rims

Home » Categories » Automotive » Automotive General » Low Budget Super Power » Printer Friendly

Ed Howes

Low Budget Super Power

Rated 4 out of 5
No Reader Ratings Available ?
Rate It  /  View Comments  /  View All Articles submitted by Ed Howes
Submitted Friday, June 23, 2006
Ed Howes (127)
Ed Howes


Log in to become a member of Ed Howes's Fan Club!



It's 21st Century technology, invented nearly a hundred years ago. Isn't it about time to dust it off and put it to use?

Near the beginning of the Twentieth Century, Nikola Tesla invented an amazingly simple vane less turbine engine which developed ten horsepower per pound of engine weight. By way of comparison, a modern factory high performance, piston engine makes less than one horsepower per pound of engine weight. Tesla achieved this remarkable power to weight ratio with cast iron. Using aluminum for much of the same device would jump the power to weight ratio to at least twenty horsepower per pound, which was Tesla‘s goal. More remarkable is the fact that Tesla achieved this power as a steam driven turbine and not as a combustion turbine. His dream of twenty horsepower per pound is easily in reach of a modern machine shop. Possibly as many as fifty horsepower per pound is also within reach of modern production capability.

So who needs a half pound, twenty five horsepower engine? Motorcyclists, home electric generators. RV electric generators. Hybrid electric vehicles, compact trucks and mini vans, one for each wheel. And who needs a four pound two hundred horsepower engine? Every mechanic who ever changed a five hundred pound, two hundred horsepower engine. Small aircraft pilots, small boat enthusiasts, compact and mid size car and truck owners, neighborhood or village electric generators. On and on it goes. Double the power and weight and we find a host of replacement conditions and options. Go the other way. How about a five horsepower engine that weighs two ounces? The uses of Tesla combustion turbines are limited only by one’s imagination. Brand new truck, aircraft, boat and auto companies would sprout like potatoes to build vehicles around such tiny power plants.

Although Tesla designed a combustion turbine for liquid fuel and invented a super one way mixture supply valve to create a high speed pulse engine, applying fast burn combustion principles to the Tesla turbine will substantially increase power output and fuel economy with very low emissions. Here we have a Twenty First Century engine that has been around and ignored for ninety years or more. With either one or two moving parts, depending on whether we use a revolving combustion chamber to reverse engine rotation, we also have an engine that is cheap and easy to manufacture.

Tesla’s passion was divided between wireless electrical transmission and anti gravity air transport. He had such a wide range of personal interests, he seldom developed anything to optimal function. This remains for others to do, opening all kinds of patent and marketing opportunities. Tesla did the hard work. Who will finish it?

The Tesla turbine has found applications as a pump to transfer fish in hatchery tanks, to pump concrete and to drive boats. For reasons unknown to me but suspected, there has been little work done to make combustion engines with the design. The great opportunity being missed here is the ease of producing a multi stage engine in a compact, lightweight design that would easily double the best fuel economy possible with a piston engine and more than double the best power possible. Those of us with little economic and political power can get very excited about the possibilities of great mechanical power, as Tesla himself did.

Supercharging combustion engines has been a technique for substantially increasing the power output by half, double, triple and more, depending on the strength of engine parts which must bear the increased loads created by the boosted power levels. Since superchargers are essentially air pumps, as are combustion engines, the Tesla turbine is not only an ideal pump for supercharging engines, it can be built as a unit with a Tesla combustion turbine to boost power by a factor of five or more. This is what makes fifty horsepower per pound a distinct and perhaps conservative possibility.

While superchargers have been used to boost power for more than sixty years, exhaust scavengers are practically unknown. The Tesla design presents an opportunity to add a third stage on the exhaust side of the combustion turbine that will draw the exhaust gases out of the combustion turbine, making the supercharger on the other side more efficient.

As a supercharger on a piston engine, either belt or exhaust driven, the Tesla turbine offers far lower cost, greater efficiency, greater dependability and ease of maintenance. The truly revolutionary supercharger application would come from a self powered combustion turbine/ compressor. It does nothing until additional power is needed at any desired engine speed. It is then switched on with the push of a button and can be controlled to produce the same amount of boost at any engine speed, something no belt or exhaust driven supercharger can do.

Combine the elegance, simplicity, low cost, power potential, dependability, ease of maintenance and fuel economy of the Tesla turbine with fast burn vapor fuel and/ or water fuel with modern computer controlled fuel induction and we would have the perfect replacement for every combustion application known to mankind. How much longer will the very idea of it sit on history’s shelf?

Ed Howes sought and found, knocked and entered.Now he sees things differently. To see more of what he sees, please visit http://www.justanotherview.com or do an author search here at Search Warp. Readers grow: wiser, better, faster.





Reprint Rights

Log in to become a member of Ed Howes's Fan Club!

Comments on this article:


» left by PL Caruso from Virginia (256 days 9 hours ago.)
Reader Rating: 4 out of 5
why try a compressed air cylindar converted to electric generator via a tesla turbine rerouting electric back through capacitors as well as air saved in a closed system ?I'd like to see how this hybrid compares to compressed air gasoline engine .sounds like an EV without emisions better performance with an electric motor and maybe more efficiency and distance ?
Respond to this comment

» left by Jared Davis (192 days 20 hours ago.)
The Tesla turbine does not produce as much power as a modern vane turbine. Especially with cast iron. The design is indeed usable, but not for compact or lightweight applications, and not for large scale applications. Modern vane turbines can reach abotu 60% efficiency. This means they convert about 60% of the heat energy of steam into electircity. The rest is waste heat. This, as far as I know, includes the use or heat exchangers, regenerators, and double cycle power plants. A tesla turbine maxes out at about 40% efficiency. So, for any steam that you generate, you will only produce 2/3 the power that you could possibly get from a vane turbine.

In addition, it is not the turbine that makes up most of the weight. It is the boiler that weighs the most. Even the smallest effective boilers are twice the size of an average motorcycle. And, then you have to carry a liquid which to turn into steam. That weighs more than the boiler. A 20 horsepower steam engine will require several gallons of water to run even for a short time. Unless you include a condenser to retain your water in a closed loop steam system, you will need to tank up on water frequently. Then you need fuel to heat the water. Again, you will need to carry gasoline or propane or wood to burn to convert heat to steam to convert steam to work to convert work to electricity to convert electricity to a transmission, which in turn will run your "25 pound" motorcycle. Using compressed air is more realistic. However the efficiencies are even fewer, as air can be compressed. Thus it takes more air at higher pressure to do the same amount of work. This is why no one uses steam in motive engines (except ships).
With more research you will find that even with modern materials, a tesla turbine falls apart at the temperatires and speeds that current vane turbines run at. Higher temperature equals higher efficiency. Turbine disks large enough to compete with the power requirements of a modern steam plant warp out of shape within a few hundred hours of use. If you were a steam plant operator, would you want to rebuild your turbine twice a month? A tesla turbine might be useable for low efficiency non-mobile uses. The main advantage of a tesla turbine is not efficiency. They are not efficient.

The main advantage is the simplicity of building a tesla trubine. Also, laminar flow (tesla) engine is a type of drag based turbine. The most efficient turbines do not use drag, they use lift. This is true for wind turbines, as well as closed loop steam turbines as well as motive gas turbines that you find in aircraft. Tesla turbines are cheap to manufacture though. SO if you have an infinite supply of energy (such as heat) where it doesnt matter what the efficinecy is, then you might be able to use it.

In summary, the tesla trubine never cut the mustard. This was proven when power plant operators attempted to use them back in the early 1900's.

Respond to this comment

» left by Anonymous (120 days 14 hours ago.)
The problem with using a tesla turbine for the compression of any gas
 
(whether intake air or exhaust) is that at high compression ratios, the air
 
at the edge of each disk is hotter than the air at the center, resulting in the
 
disk being hotter at the edge than the center. Because metals expand when
 
heated, the outer edge of each disk "wants" to be bigger than the part of the
 
disk inside it. This results in warping, and eventual mechanical failure.

Respond to this comment

Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question:

 

This Article has been viewed 832 times.
Article added to SearchWarp.com on Friday, June 23, 2006
View other articles written by Ed Howes (127)
Ed Howes


If you found this article interesting, you may want to check out:

Disclaimer:  All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional or organization.


Today's Most Popular
Illegal Street Racing: A Growing Problem

Retired Police Cars and Police Car Auctions

Anyone Can Clean their Car, but What About those Cloudy, Yellow Headlights?

How To Repair Wheel Bearings On Your Trailer

Proper Headlight Cleaning and Repair From the Experts

Warm Up Your Car In Winter

Car Accident Statistics

2006 Daewoo Lanos: Totally Pleasurable

FWD vs. RWD. Which Is Better?

Troubleshooting Your Ford’s Alternator and Other Electrical Parts

Home  |  Page Two  |  FAQ's  |  Contact  |  Terms of Service  |  Article Submission Guidelines  |  Writers' Contests  |  Privacy  |  Mission / About
Copyright © 1999-2008 SearchWarp.com, All Rights Reserved - SearchWarp.com is an IcoLogic, Inc. Company